No mainstream love for steel?
#51
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Liked 1,057 Times
in
636 Posts
I have re-read all the comments on this thread, and I still say it all comes back to money. Think about it, except for a few insanely price CF frames, they are all laid up in China. They pay some poor Chinese woman probably 10 cents an hour to press CF and resin into a mold. They bake it, and MAGIC you have a bike frame. I cant believe it cost these Chinese mfg even $100 to lay up those frames. (I would really like to know what that cost is). Then again just like magic with the right name and the right advertising you have a $10,000 bike. And making that kind of profit, you can have a huge advertising budget, and magazines take that money and highly tout those bikes.
Yup its the money.
Yup its the money.
#52
Generally bewildered
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,038
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Liked 342 Times
in
252 Posts
CF is just another engineering material. For some things, like plane control surfaces and bicycle forks, it's terrific stuff.
Likes For WizardOfBoz:
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
Posts: 5,395
Bikes: Too many to list
Liked 1,127 Times
in
748 Posts
Airbus had some problems, for sure - never trust the French! (LOL - just kidding )
The text in blue below is not my opinion, its just a summary I found. Pilot error has been causing accidents since the dawn of aviation but I havent really dug into Airbus' many issues that deep
On the flip side , I still shake my head in wonder that the near 70 year old B-52 is still in service
NTSB wrote:
"The Flight 587 crash [Airbus A300-605R (N14053)] on November 12, 2001, was the second deadliest aviation accident in American history. The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. NTSB says pilot's excessive rudder pedal inputs led to the crash.
The plane's vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aerodynamic loads that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs(???)
The investigation tryded to determine why those components - made of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, a composite material - separated in flight. The Board found that the composite material used in constructing the vertical stabilizer was not a factor in the accident (!!!) because the tail failed well beyond its certificated and design limits. The Safety Board said that, although other pilots provided generally positive comments about the first officer's abilities, two pilots noted incidents that showed that he had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence encounters. The Safety Board's airplane performance study showed that the high loads that eventually overstressed the vertical stabilizer were solely the result of the pilot's rudder pedal inputs and were not associated with the wake turbulence.
“Had the first officer stopped making inputs at any time before the vertical stabilizer failed, the natural stability of the aircraft would have returned the sideslip angle to near 0 degrees, and the accident would not have happened.”"
#54
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Liked 1,057 Times
in
636 Posts
I think that the cause of those failures was found to be excessive pilot use of rudder to control oscillations due to wake vortices from other planes. I suspect that you could break off any control surface if you apply enough oscillatory force. So I don't think its just CF that's to blame.
CF is just another engineering material. For some things, like plane control surfaces and bicycle forks, it's terrific stuff.
CF is just another engineering material. For some things, like plane control surfaces and bicycle forks, it's terrific stuff.
Likes For rydabent:
#56
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Liked 1,057 Times
in
636 Posts
I didn't mean to start a structural material based thread drift-- Doh --
Airbus had some problems, for sure - never trust the French! (LOL - just kidding )
The text in blue below is not my opinion, its just a summary I found. Pilot error has been causing accidents since the dawn of aviation but I havent really dug into Airbus' many issues that deep
On the flip side , I still shake my head in wonder that the near 70 year old B-52 is still in service
NTSB wrote:
"The Flight 587 crash [Airbus A300-605R (N14053)] on November 12, 2001, was the second deadliest aviation accident in American history. The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. NTSB says pilot's excessive rudder pedal inputs led to the crash.
The plane's vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aerodynamic loads that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs(???)
The investigation tryded to determine why those components - made of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, a composite material - separated in flight. The Board found that the composite material used in constructing the vertical stabilizer was not a factor in the accident (!!!) because the tail failed well beyond its certificated and design limits. The Safety Board said that, although other pilots provided generally positive comments about the first officer's abilities, two pilots noted incidents that showed that he had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence encounters. The Safety Board's airplane performance study showed that the high loads that eventually overstressed the vertical stabilizer were solely the result of the pilot's rudder pedal inputs and were not associated with the wake turbulence.
“Had the first officer stopped making inputs at any time before the vertical stabilizer failed, the natural stability of the aircraft would have returned the sideslip angle to near 0 degrees, and the accident would not have happened.”"
Airbus had some problems, for sure - never trust the French! (LOL - just kidding )
The text in blue below is not my opinion, its just a summary I found. Pilot error has been causing accidents since the dawn of aviation but I havent really dug into Airbus' many issues that deep
On the flip side , I still shake my head in wonder that the near 70 year old B-52 is still in service
NTSB wrote:
"The Flight 587 crash [Airbus A300-605R (N14053)] on November 12, 2001, was the second deadliest aviation accident in American history. The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. NTSB says pilot's excessive rudder pedal inputs led to the crash.
The plane's vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aerodynamic loads that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs(???)
The investigation tryded to determine why those components - made of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, a composite material - separated in flight. The Board found that the composite material used in constructing the vertical stabilizer was not a factor in the accident (!!!) because the tail failed well beyond its certificated and design limits. The Safety Board said that, although other pilots provided generally positive comments about the first officer's abilities, two pilots noted incidents that showed that he had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence encounters. The Safety Board's airplane performance study showed that the high loads that eventually overstressed the vertical stabilizer were solely the result of the pilot's rudder pedal inputs and were not associated with the wake turbulence.
“Had the first officer stopped making inputs at any time before the vertical stabilizer failed, the natural stability of the aircraft would have returned the sideslip angle to near 0 degrees, and the accident would not have happened.”"
You dont want to blame billion dollar corporations for their mistakes when you can blame an expendable little pilot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kinda makes you wonder how many members of the NTSB were able to pay off their houses after that report came out.
Last edited by rydabent; 04-13-20 at 09:06 AM.
Likes For rydabent:
#57
Senior Member
Look at orange velo, waterford, rivendell amongst many other. Sometimes a niche market, but still there. I have a curbside find Nishiki , 4 Surlys and a Burley, Cheers.
#58
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Liked 1,057 Times
in
636 Posts
As in my other comment, since the Airbus was flown THRU the computer, it should have been programmed NOT to over stress the rudder. The crash was purely do to Airbus not programming the computer right!!!!!! And again due to computer programming error an early Airbus crashed when the computer thot the plane was landing when the pilot was doing a low pass.
You dont want to blame billion dollar corporations for their mistakes when you can blame an expendable little pilot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kinda makes you wonder how many members of the NTSB were able to pay off their houses after that report came out.
You dont want to blame billion dollar corporations for their mistakes when you can blame an expendable little pilot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kinda makes you wonder how many members of the NTSB were able to pay off their houses after that report came out.
Oh and before I get grief about the 737 Max that again is a computer problem, not the air frame.
#59
Generally bewildered
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,038
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Liked 342 Times
in
252 Posts
Clearly, rydabent has some insight that most of us (including me) don't. Thanks for the interesting comments.
If the proposition is "CF is not a good material for airplanes" I don't think that's what the evidence addresses. A lot of Boeing airplanes, and military aircraft (which I suspect take "built like a tank" to a whole 'nother level) use CF and don't fall apart. Clearly, CF works, and works well, for many aero applications.
If the proposition is "CF was not properly used in the Airbus planes that crashed", I think you've made some clear points in the affirmative. As an engineer, though, I'd think that the vertical and horizontal stabilizer joints with the fuselage would likely be engineered to be pretty strong. As a systems engineer, I'd suspect that the vert stabilizer only came off under extreme load. So maybe something in the control system was prompted by the vortices from other plans initiated an excessive oscillation due to improper feedback. Or, maybe the FO DID apply too much correction. If my reading serves, they changed the training wrt stabilizing the plane during vortex shear. Whatever the cause (and I tend to believe an actual pilot) I think that the tail did not just pop off in normal flight: it had to be subjected to excessive shear. And it wasn't at the "bank vault" level of Boeing design/construction.
And thanks, rydabent and DMC707, for sharing expertise. Please correct any misintepretation I've made.
If the proposition is "CF is not a good material for airplanes" I don't think that's what the evidence addresses. A lot of Boeing airplanes, and military aircraft (which I suspect take "built like a tank" to a whole 'nother level) use CF and don't fall apart. Clearly, CF works, and works well, for many aero applications.
If the proposition is "CF was not properly used in the Airbus planes that crashed", I think you've made some clear points in the affirmative. As an engineer, though, I'd think that the vertical and horizontal stabilizer joints with the fuselage would likely be engineered to be pretty strong. As a systems engineer, I'd suspect that the vert stabilizer only came off under extreme load. So maybe something in the control system was prompted by the vortices from other plans initiated an excessive oscillation due to improper feedback. Or, maybe the FO DID apply too much correction. If my reading serves, they changed the training wrt stabilizing the plane during vortex shear. Whatever the cause (and I tend to believe an actual pilot) I think that the tail did not just pop off in normal flight: it had to be subjected to excessive shear. And it wasn't at the "bank vault" level of Boeing design/construction.
And thanks, rydabent and DMC707, for sharing expertise. Please correct any misintepretation I've made.
#60
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Liked 1,057 Times
in
636 Posts
I didn't mean to start a structural material based thread drift-- Doh --
Airbus had some problems, for sure - never trust the French! (LOL - just kidding )
The text in blue below is not my opinion, its just a summary I found. Pilot error has been causing accidents since the dawn of aviation but I havent really dug into Airbus' many issues that deep
On the flip side , I still shake my head in wonder that the near 70 year old B-52 is still in service
NTSB wrote:
"The Flight 587 crash [Airbus A300-605R (N14053)] on November 12, 2001, was the second deadliest aviation accident in American history. The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. NTSB says pilot's excessive rudder pedal inputs led to the crash.
The plane's vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aerodynamic loads that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs(???)
The investigation tryded to determine why those components - made of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, a composite material - separated in flight. The Board found that the composite material used in constructing the vertical stabilizer was not a factor in the accident (!!!) because the tail failed well beyond its certificated and design limits. The Safety Board said that, although other pilots provided generally positive comments about the first officer's abilities, two pilots noted incidents that showed that he had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence encounters. The Safety Board's airplane performance study showed that the high loads that eventually overstressed the vertical stabilizer were solely the result of the pilot's rudder pedal inputs and were not associated with the wake turbulence.
“Had the first officer stopped making inputs at any time before the vertical stabilizer failed, the natural stability of the aircraft would have returned the sideslip angle to near 0 degrees, and the accident would not have happened.”"
Airbus had some problems, for sure - never trust the French! (LOL - just kidding )
The text in blue below is not my opinion, its just a summary I found. Pilot error has been causing accidents since the dawn of aviation but I havent really dug into Airbus' many issues that deep
On the flip side , I still shake my head in wonder that the near 70 year old B-52 is still in service
NTSB wrote:
"The Flight 587 crash [Airbus A300-605R (N14053)] on November 12, 2001, was the second deadliest aviation accident in American history. The aircraft's vertical stabilizer and rudder were found in Jamaica Bay, about a mile from the main wreckage site. The engines, which also separated from the aircraft, were found several blocks from the wreckage site. NTSB says pilot's excessive rudder pedal inputs led to the crash.
The plane's vertical stabilizer separated in flight as a result of aerodynamic loads that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs(???)
The investigation tryded to determine why those components - made of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, a composite material - separated in flight. The Board found that the composite material used in constructing the vertical stabilizer was not a factor in the accident (!!!) because the tail failed well beyond its certificated and design limits. The Safety Board said that, although other pilots provided generally positive comments about the first officer's abilities, two pilots noted incidents that showed that he had a tendency to overreact to wake turbulence encounters. The Safety Board's airplane performance study showed that the high loads that eventually overstressed the vertical stabilizer were solely the result of the pilot's rudder pedal inputs and were not associated with the wake turbulence.
“Had the first officer stopped making inputs at any time before the vertical stabilizer failed, the natural stability of the aircraft would have returned the sideslip angle to near 0 degrees, and the accident would not have happened.”"
Back in about 1934 a recumbent bike was capturing all the biking records and winning races. The big moneyed manuf had the UCI declare the recumbent wasnt a bicycle. The manuf didnt have to buy new tooling to build recumbents, and the members of the UCI probably got to spend at least two weeks on French beaches all expenses paid.
#61
Senior Member
As in my other comment, since the Airbus was flown THRU the computer, it should have been programmed NOT to over stress the rudder. The crash was purely do to Airbus not programming the computer right!!!!!! And again due to computer programming error an early Airbus crashed when the computer thot the plane was landing when the pilot was doing a low pass.
You dont want to blame billion dollar corporations for their mistakes when you can blame an expendable little pilot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kinda makes you wonder how many members of the NTSB were able to pay off their houses after that report came out.
You dont want to blame billion dollar corporations for their mistakes when you can blame an expendable little pilot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kinda makes you wonder how many members of the NTSB were able to pay off their houses after that report came out.
FWIW this is a common problem that a controls design team must make a decision on - Do you grant the operator full authority even if it means the vehicle can be damaged, or do you limit the operator's authority thereby preventing damage to vehicle but possibly preventing the operator from saving themselves (and others) at the expense of vehicle? (Full disclosure - I haven't worked on aircraft control system in 30 years, but I have worked on off-road vehicle control systems (steep slope harvesters) where an operator sometimes needs to use the arm to stop the vehicle from tumbling down the mountainside, usually to the detriment of the harvesting head.) A lot of this comes down to the expected training level of the operator - the better trained they are, the more likely you are to grant full authority. A commercial pilot is typically considered a highly skilled operator who knows the limit of the aircraft they are flying, so you are probably going to grant them full control authority. On the other hand you would likely limit the operator of a rental aerial work platform because they typically won't have any idea that they could tip the vehicle of they extend the boom out too far. It's very easy to second guess and unless you've seen the design analysis there is no way to know if it is the correct decision. No matter what there is always going to be some scenario, however unlikely, that will occur that had the decision to either limit or grant full authority will be wrong.
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,859
Bikes: Lemond '01 Maillot Jaune, Lemond '02 Victoire, Lemond '03 Poprad, Lemond '03 Wayzata DB conv(Poprad), '79 AcerMex Windsor Carrera Professional(pur new), '88 GT Tequesta(pur new), '01 Bianchi Grizzly, 1993 Trek 970 DB conv, Trek 8900 DB conv
Likes: 0
Liked 816 Times
in
474 Posts
The bike shops are full of carbon and aluminum bikes as they're cheaper to manufacture..this, combined with heavy marketing(and vibration damping gimmicks to make the materials better behaved), can take over any market. Those that grow up with the market blitz really have no idea/appreciation of any other option.
..not trying to start any frame-material wars..just an observation from someone who has been biking as an adult since 1975 and has watched the material transition over the years. Industry will always gravitate to lower cost production and then invest in marketing to sell what they make as a product-plus...nature of the beast.
#63
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,874
Liked 4,042 Times
in
2,753 Posts
Some bike companies are still doing a steady business selling steel, even the occasional high-end model. It's a good material
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,496
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Liked 8,298 Times
in
3,298 Posts
#65
I think steel bikes are seen as "common". That's how I looked at them when I started riding. I had vintage steel, which to me at the time was the same thing as new steel. I thought only suckers would buy a new steel bike, as vintage steel was much cheaper and its everywhere. I still think this to some degree, but I recognize there are way more options with new steel now. Back when I started, I couldnt wait to get an aluminum bike, and once I got one, I couldnt wait to get a carbon bike. Once I got a carbon bike, I swore by it for a few years before crashing twice while racing and seeing my friends on carbon dropping chains which cost them 500 bucks a pop in frame fixes. Carbon didnt make financial sense for me. My race bike is now an aluminum Jamis, and my training bikes are all steel from the 90's with modern components. I'm back to where I started, but with an appreciation for steel that I didnt have early on. None of the pros ride steel (for road racing anyway). I think a few of them would if they had the chance and weren't limited by their sponsors. But yeah, definitely about money/marketing at the end of the day, and selling new product. No one makes money when the bike that's "best in its category" is actually 20 years old with a 15 year old groupset.
Last edited by celesteguy; 04-10-20 at 08:02 PM.
Likes For celesteguy:
#66
Senior Member
I only ride vintage steel. There were so many bikes made during the bike boom in the early seventies through the eighties that were very well made , so many to choose from. These bikes are mostly hand made bikes with classic racing or touring geometry . Right now they are readily available in any size it just takes finding the one ( or more) that fits your style. The Columbus or Reynolds tubing along with some beautiful lug work make these bikes highly desirable. Some have chrome lugs or cut outs and nice forged drop outs with axle stop adjusters . A lot use very nice components from Campagnolo or Suntour as well as others. All this for less than the cost of an entry level mass produced , disposable piece of land fill fodder. Joe joesvintageroadbikes.wordpress
#67
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 17,038
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Liked 8,065 Times
in
4,472 Posts
Just curious, as I flip through the latest Bicycling magazine round up of "best bikes in every category". With the exception of one $11k road bike, there's not a single steel bike. There's one high end titanium Moots. Otherwise, it's all carbon or aluminum. There's so many great steel rides out there now in different price ranges, especially in the gravel category, I just find it a little baffling. Is it about steel having a bad weight rap? Of course, I know I'm talking Bicycling Mag and not The Radavist or what-have-you, but still, so many folks prefer steel I find it curious
Anyways, just because a magazine doesn't declare a steel frame bike the winner if any categories of bikes doesnt mean much at all.
Also, I was surprised to read the serious ignorance in this thread as it pertains to the availability and quality of good steel frame bikes.
I'll post up a few of my current steel frame bikes. They are but 3 of probably a dozen steel frame bikes that I've owned or currently own.
Fairlight Secan gravel bike. 853 main tubes, 4130 stays, carbon fork. Modern 2x11 drive train and disc brakes.
Black Mountain Monstercross turned into commuter/tourer. Double butted and heat treated 8/5/8 cromo tubing. 3x9 drivetrain thats a mix of modern and classic.
Hand-built road frame i made in a frame building class a couple years ago. Columbus Zona tubing. Modern 2x11 drivetrain.
Last edited by mstateglfr; 04-10-20 at 10:31 PM.
Likes For mstateglfr:
#68
Senior Member
First time here on the forums I have seen the Wright Bros. mentioned. Such a great story of them. Probably my favorite 'pioneers.' I've got to get over there to Dayton, OH one of these days. They were big into bikes. One of them more than the other but that might have been the period when one of them crashed hard and almost died. Plane crash. They were motivated daredevils.
Last edited by BirdsBikeBinocs; 04-10-20 at 10:46 PM.
#69
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Liked 1,057 Times
in
636 Posts
First time here on the forums I have seen the Wright Bros. mentioned. Such a great story of them. Probably my favorite 'pioneers.' I've got to get over there to Dayton, OH one of these days. They were big into bikes. One of them more than the other but that might have been the period when one of them crashed hard and almost died. Plane crash. They were motivated daredevils.
#70
Senior Member
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,496
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Liked 8,298 Times
in
3,298 Posts
There are also bikes with wooden wheels sitting in museums -- does that make wooden wheels superior to carbon wheels?
Likes For tomato coupe:
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Menomonee Falls, WI
Posts: 1,861
Bikes: 1984 Schwinn Supersport, 1988 Trek 400T, 1977 Trek TX900, 1982 Bianchi Champione del Mondo, 1978 Raleigh Supercourse, 1986 Trek 400 Elance, 1991 Waterford PDG OS Paramount, 1971 Schwinn Sports Tourer, 1985 Trek 670
Liked 1,078 Times
in
546 Posts
Tim
Likes For tkamd73:
Likes For AdkMtnMonster:
#74
Clark W. Griswold
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 14,619
Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26
Liked 4,553 Times
in
3,050 Posts
I occasionally read Bicycling's website when all the other bike sites and outdoor sites I normally peruse have been read and I am desperate. They are marketing and that is about it. Those who ride steel know why steel same thing with titanium. Having at least 8 steel bikes and currently 2 titanium bikes (that is about to go up one more bike) and 2 aluminum bikes (that number is about to go down one) I can say I much prefer steel or titanium and I think if more people go exposed to the higher quality stuff out there more and more people would make the switch. Plus if we saw more pro teams rocking it, it would be marketed better these days.
#75
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Thornhill, Canada
Posts: 777
Bikes: QU-AX Uni, United Motocross BMX, Specialized Langster, Giant OCR, Marin Muirwoods, Globe Roll2, VROD:)
Liked 430 Times
in
259 Posts
If I find myself in the bike market again it will be a steelie......